Good question. Seeing Susan in the restaurant makes the concept of extraterrestrial life ridiculous, and yet in the real world extraterrestial life has every right to exist. Therefore there’s some discrepancy

The way Amy Adams is filmed in the film is extremely artistic, yet it’s just natural as well, and the same goes for the story with Tony Hastings, which is what makes the film really bizarre

Nocturnal Animals is about the origin of bias, and it feels like an anti that can’t be reacted to: the images of Susan getting angrier and more confused in the restaurant at the end of the film – and the images of Tony in the desert at the end – are possibly the means to replicate the replication of absence. Susan and Tony provoke reaction, but they also mean the inability to react, and therefore perhaps their story can be used to destroy the universe

Nocturnal Animals is a very explosive movie; that’s the irony, in the sense that the idea of the Second World War being deleted by the movie isn’t an adequate reaction, and yet of course any such reality would be astronomical.

All of reality is based on bias, and so Nocturnal Animals is perhaps a physical means of expression that can lead to knowing the original bias. If reality is the absence of reaction, as in reaction was never true to begin with, could it be the case that Nocturnal Animals is the need to subvert that truth?

An example, is that ending nations using planets and galaxies would seem to be powerful, but of course is just fantasy: so maybe the film is evidence of the need to prove that reaction is real.

The visual symmetry between Tony and Susan – especially at end, when Tony is in the desert and Susan is in the bath – on its own puts the entire Godfather trilogy to shame, and the MCU